MHC AND MHICL vs.

NLRC et al

informed respondent Santos that he was

G.R. No. 120077

recommended by one Buenio, a friend of his.

October 13, 2000

Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the

same position as printer, but with a higher

FACTS: private respondent Santos was an

overseas worker employed as a printer at the
Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of Oman.

monthly

salary

and

increased

benefits.

Respondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and

signified his acceptance of the offer.

Subsequently he was directly hired by the

Palace Hotel, Beijing, Peoples Republic of

The Palace Hotel Manager, Mr. Henk mailed a

China

ready

and

later

terminated

due

to

retrenchment.

to

sign

employment

contract

to

respondent Santos. Santos resigned from the

Mazoon Printing Press. Santos wrote the

Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corporation

(MHC) and the Manila Hotel International
Company, Limited (MHICL).

government-owned

and

controlled

corporation duly organized and existing under

the laws of the Philippines. MHICL is a
corporation duly organized and existing under
the

laws

of

Hong

Kong.

letter. The employment contract stated that

his employment would be for a period of two

When the case was filed in 1990, MHC was

still

Palace Hotel and acknowledged Mr. Henks

MHC

is

an

incorporator of MHICL, owning 50% of its

capital stock.
By virtue of a management agreement with
the Palace Hotel, MHICL trained the personnel
and staff of the Palace Hotel at Beijing, China.
Now the facts.

years. He then started to work at the Palace

Hotel.
Subsequently, respondent Santos signed an
amended employment agreement with the
Palace Hotel. In the contract, Mr. Shmidt
represented

the

Palace

Hotel.

The

Vice

President (Operations and Development) of

petitioner

MHICL

employment

Cergueda

agreement

under

signed
the

the
word

noted.
After working in the Palace hotel for less than
1 year, the Palace Hotel informed respondent
Santos by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt that his

During his employment with the Mazoon

employment at the Palace Hotel print shop

Printing Press, respondent Santos received a

would be terminated due to business reverses

letter from Mr. Shmidt, General Manager,

brought about by the political upheaval in

Palace Hotel, Beijing, China. Mr. Schmidt

China.

The

Palace

Hotel

terminated

the

employment of Santos and paid all benefits

that the LAs recommendation had no basis in

due him, including his plane fare back to the

law and in fact, however it was denied. Hence,

Philippines. Santos was repatriated to the

this petition.

Philippines.
ISSUE: Is the NLRC a proper forum to decide
Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

this case?

with the Arbitration Branch, NCR, NLRC. He

prayed for an award of AD, ED and AF for. The
complaint named MHC, MHICL, the Palace
Hotel and Mr. Shmidt as respondents. The

HELD:

petition

granted;

the

orders

and

resolutions of the NLRC are annulled.

NO

Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt were not served

with summons and neither participated in the

Forum Non-Conveniens

proceedings before the LA.

The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
The LA decided the case against petitioners.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that
the POEA, not the NLRC had jurisdiction over
the case. The NLRC promulgated a resolution,
stating

that

the

appealed

Decision

be

declared null and void for want of jurisdiction

We note that the main aspects of the case

transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the
case involves purely foreign elements. The
only link that the Philippines has with the case
is that Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace
Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not

Santos moved for reconsideration of the

all cases involving our citizens can be tried

afore-quoted resolution. He argued that the

here.

case was not cognizable by the POEA as he

was not an overseas contract worker. The
NLRC granted the motion and reversed itself.
The NLRC directed another LA to hear the
case on the question of whether private
respondent was retrenched or dismissed. The
La found that Santos was illegally dismissed
from employment and recommended that he
be paid actual damages equivalent to his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his
contract. The NLRC ruled in favor of private
respondent. Petitioners filed an MR arguing

The employment contract. Respondent

Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel,
a foreign employer, through correspondence
sent

to

the

Sultanate

of

Oman,

where

respondent Santos was then employed. He

was hired without the intervention of the
POEA or any authorized recruitment agency of
the government.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a
Philippine

court

or

agency

may

assume

jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so

provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one

the Palace Hotel in the Peoples Republic of

to which the parties may conveniently resort

China.

to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position

to make an intelligent decision as to the law
and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court
has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decision. The conditions are unavailing in the

No power to determine the facts. Neither

can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding
the

alleged

illegal

dismissal

as

all

acts

complained of took place in Beijing, Peoples

Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a

case at bar.

position to determine whether the Tiannamen

Not Convenient. We fail to see how the

Square

NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the

operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify

incidents of the case from the time of

Santos retrenchment.

recruitment,
occurred

to

employment

outside

the

to

incident

truly

adversely

affected

dismissal

Philippines.

The

inconvenience is compounded by the fact that

the proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and
MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines.
Neither .are they doing business in the
Philippines. Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr.
Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the

Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute

decision. Even assuming that a proper
decision could be reached by the NLRC, such
would not have any binding effect against the
employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel
is a corporation incorporated under the laws
of China and was not even served with
summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not

Philippines.

acquired.
No power to determine applicable law.
Neither can an intelligent decision be made as
to

the

law

governing

the

employment

contract as such was perfected in foreign soil.

This calls to fore the application of the
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the

This is not to say that Philippine courts and

agencies

have

controversies

no

involving

power

to

solve

foreign

employers.

Neither are we saying that we do not have

power over an employment contract executed
in a foreign country. If Santos were an

place where the contract was made).

overseas

contract

worker,

Philippine

The employment contract was not perfected

forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC,

in

his

would protect him. He is not an overseas

acceptance by writing a letter while he was in

contract worker a fact which he admits with

the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to

conviction.

the

Philippines.

Santos

signified

__

Santos predicates MHICLs liability on the fact

Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper

that MHICL signed his employment contract

forum,

with the Palace Hotel. This fact fails to

even

on

the

merits,

the

NLRCs

decision cannot be sustained.

persuade us.

II. MHC Not Liable

First,

we

note

(Operations
Even if we assume two things: (1) that the
NLRC had jurisdiction over the case, and (2)
that

MHICL

was

liable

for

Santos

that

and

the

Vice

Development)

President
of

MHICL,

Cergueda signed the employment contract as

a mere witness. He merely signed under the
word noted.

retrenchment, still MHC, as a separate and

distinct juridical entity cannot be held liable.

When one notes a contract, one is not

expressing his agreement or approval, as a

True, MHC is an incorporator of MHICL and

owns 50% of its capital stock. However, this is
not enough to pierce the veil of corporate
fiction between MHICL and MHC. In Traders
Royal Bank v. CA, we held that the mere
ownership by a single stockholder or by
another corporation of all or nearly all of the
capital stock of a corporation is not of itself a
sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of
separate corporate personalities.

separate and distinct from those composing it

as well as from that of any other legal entity
which

it may

be

related.

Clear and

convincing evidence is needed to pierce the

veil of corporate fiction. In this case, we find
no evidence to show that MHICL and MHC are
one and the same entity.
III. MHICL not Liable

would.

In

Sichangco

v.

Commissioners of Immigration,

Board
the

of

Court

recognized that the term noted means that

the

person

so noting has merely taken

cognizance of the existence of an act or

declaration, without exercising a judicious
deliberation or rendering a decision on the
matter.
Second, and more importantly, there was no
existing

It is basic that a corporation has a personality

to

party

employer-employee

relationship

between Santos and MHICL. In determining

the

existence

relationship,

of

the

an

employer-employee

following

elements

considered:
(1) the selection and engagement of the
employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power to dismiss; and
(4) the power to control employees
conduct.

are

MHICL did not have and did not exercise any

COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND

of the aforementioned powers. It did not

DESIGN, INC et al vs.CA et al.

select respondent Santos as an employee for

G.R. No. 102223

the Palace Hotel. He was referred to the

August 22, 1996

Palace Hotel by his friend, Buenio. MHICL did

FACTS:

not engage respondent Santos to work. The

MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., (CMDI) and

terms of employment were negotiated and

ASPAC MULTI-TRADE INC., (ASPAC) are both

finalized through correspondence between

domestic corporations.. Private Respondents

Santos, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Henk, who were

ITEC, INC. and/or ITEC, INTERNATIONAL, INC.

officers and representatives of the Palace

(ITEC) are corporations duly organized and

Hotel and not MHICL. Neither did Santos

existing under the laws of the State of

adduce any proof that MHICL had the power

Alabama, USA. There is no dispute that ITEC is

to control his conduct. Finally, it was the

Palace Hotel, through Mr. Schmidt and not
MHICL that terminated respondent Santos

Petitioners

COMMUNICATION

a foreign corporation not licensed to do

business in the Philippines.
ITEC entered into a contract with ASPAC
referred to as Representative Agreement.

services.

Pursuant to the contract, ITEC engaged ASPAC

Likewise, there is no evidence to show that

as

its

exclusive

representative

in

the

the Palace Hotel and MHICL are one and the

Philippines for the sale of ITECs products, in

same entity. The fact that the Palace Hotel is a

consideration of which, ASPAC was paid a

member of the Manila Hotel Group is not

stipulated commission. Through a License

enough to pierce the corporate veil between

Agreement entered into by the same parties

MHICL and the Palace Hotel.

later on, ASPAC was able to incorporate and

use the name ITEC in its own name. Thus ,

Considering that the NLRC was forum non-

ASPAC Multi-Trade, Inc. became legally and

conveniens and considering further that no

publicly known as ASPAC-ITEC (Philippines).

employer-employee

existed

One year into the second term of the parties

between MHICL, MHC and Santos, the LA

Representative Agreement, ITEC decided to

clearly had no jurisdiction over respondents

terminate

claim in the NLRC case. In all the cases under

ASPAC

the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the

commitment

LA, an employer-employee relationship is an

agreements. ITEC charges the petitioners and

indispensable jurisdictional requirement.

another Philippine Corporation, DIGITAL BASE

relationship

the

same,

allegedly

violated

as

COMMUNICATIONS,
President

of

because

which

its

stipulated

INC.
is

petitioner
contractual
in

(DIGITAL),
likewise

their

the

petitioner

Aguirre, of using knowledge and information

HELD: petition dismissed.

of ITECs products specifications to develop

1. YES; We are persuaded to conclude that

their own line of equipment and product

ITEC

support, which are similar, if not identical to

business in the Philippines for some time

ITECs own, and offering them to ITECs

now. This is the inevitable result after a

former customer.

scrutiny

had

been

of

the

engaged

different

in

or

doing

contracts

and

agreements entered into by ITEC with its

The complaint was filed with the RTC-Makati

various business contacts in the country. Its

by ITEC, INC. Defendants filed a MTD the

arrangements, with these entities indicate

complaint on the following grounds: (1) That

convincingly that ITEC is actively engaging in

plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue as it is a

business in the country.

foreign corporation doing business in the

Philippines without the required BOI authority

A foreign corporation doing business in the

and SEC license, and (2) that plaintiff is simply

Philippines may sue

engaged in forum shopping which justifies the

although not authorized to do business here

application against it of the principle of

against a Philippine citizen or entity who had

forum

contracted

non

conveniens.

The

MTD

was

denied.

with

and

in Philippine

benefited

Courts

by

said

corporation. To put it in another way, a party

is estopped to challenge the personality of a

Petitioners

elevated

the

case

to

the

corporation after having acknowledged the

respondent CA on a Petition for Certiorari and

same by entering into a contract with it. And

Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised ROC.

the doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate

It was dismissed as well. MR denied, hence

existence applies to a foreign as well as to

this Petition for Review on Certiorari under

domestic corporations. One who has dealt

Rule 45.

with a corporation of foreign origin as a

corporate entity is estopped to deny its

ISSUE:

corporate existence and capacity.

1. Did the Philippine court acquire jurisdiction

over the person of the petitioner corp, despite

In Antam Consolidated Inc. vs. CA et al. we

allegations of lack of capacity to sue because

expressed our chagrin over this commonly

of

non-registration?

used scheme of defaulting local companies

2. Can the Philippine court give due course to

which are being sued by unlicensed foreign

the suit or dismiss it, on the principle of forum

companies not engaged in business in the

non convenience?

Philippines to invoke the lack of capacity to

sue of such foreign companies. Obviously, the

same ploy is resorted to by ASPAC to prevent

court may assume jurisdiction over the case if

the injunctive action filed by ITEC to enjoin

it chooses to do so; provided, that the

petitioner

from

following requisites are met:

acquired

in

using

knowledge

violation

of

possibly
fiduciary

1) That the Philippine Court is one to which

arrangements between the parties.

the parties may conveniently resort to;

2. YES; Petitioners insistence on the dismissal

2) That the Philippine Court is in a position to

of this action due to the application, or non

make an intelligent decision as to the law and

application, of the private international law

the facts; and,

rule of forum non conveniens defies well-

3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to

settled

have power to enforce its decision.

rules

of

fair

play.

According

to

petitioner, the Philippine Court has no venue

The aforesaid requirements having been met,

to

and in view of the courts disposition to give

apply

its

discretion

whether

to

give

cognizance or not to the present action,

due course to the questioned action, the

because it has not acquired jurisdiction over

matter of the present forum not being the

the person of the plaintiff in the case, the

most convenient as a ground for the suits

latter allegedly having no personality to sue

dismissal, deserves scant consideration.

before Philippine Courts. This argument is

misplaced because the court has already
acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the

PHILSEC INVESTMENT et al vs.CA et al

suit, by virtue of his filing the original

G.R. No. 103493

complaint. And as we have already observed,

June 19, 1997

petitioner

FACTS: Private respondent Ducat obtained

is

not

at

liberty

to

question

plaintiffs standing to sue, having already

separate

loans

from

petitioners

Ayala

acceded to the same by virtue of its entry into

International Finance Limited (AYALA) and

the Representative Agreement referred to

Philsec Investment Corp (PHILSEC), secured

earlier.

by shares of stock owned by Ducat.

In order to facilitate the payment of the loans,

Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for

private respondent 1488, Inc., through its

the Philippine Court, based on the facts of the

president, private respondent Daic, assumed

case, whether to give due course to the suit

Ducats

or dismiss it, on the principle of forum non

whereby 1488, Inc. executed a Warranty Deed

convenience. Hence, the Philippine Court may

with Vendors Lien by

refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its

petitioner Athona Holdings, N.V. (ATHONA) a

having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the

parcel of land in Texas, U.S.A., while PHILSEC

obligation

under

an

Agreement,

which it sold

to

and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA as

Ducat moved to dismiss the Civil Case in the

initial payment of the purchase price. The

RTC-Makati

balance was to be paid by means of a

pendentia, vis-a-vis the Civil Action in the

promissory note executed by ATHONA in favor

U.S., (2) forum non conveniens, and (3) failure

of 1488, Inc. Subsequently, upon their receipt

of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a

of the money from 1488, Inc., PHILSEC and

cause of action.

on

the

grounds

of

(1)

litis

AYALA released Ducat from his indebtedness

and delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares of

The trial court granted Ducats MTD, stating

stock in their possession belonging to Ducat.

that the evidentiary requirements of the

controversy may be more suitably tried before

As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the

the forum of the litis pendentia in the U.S.,

balance, the entire amount covered by the

under the principle in private international law

note

of forum non conveniens, even as it noted

became

due

and

demandable.

Accordingly, private respondent 1488, Inc.

that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case.

sued petitioners PHILSEC, AYALA, and ATHONA

in the United States for payment of the

Petitioners appealed to the CA, arguing that

balance and for damages for breach of

the trial court erred in applying the principle

contract and for fraud allegedly perpetrated

of litis pendentia and forum non conveniens.

by

petitioners

in

misrepresenting

the

marketability of the shares of stock delivered

The CA affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case

to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement.

against Ducat, 1488, Inc., and Daic on the

ground of litis pendentia.

While the Civil Case was pending in the United

States, petitioners filed a complaint For Sum

ISSUE: is the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati

of

barred by the judgment of the U.S. court?

Money

Preliminary

with

Damages

Attachment

and

against

Writ

of

private

respondents in the RTC Makati. The complaint

HELD: CA reversed. Case remanded to RTC-

reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their

Makati

respective counterclaims in the Civil Action in

NO

the United States District Court of Southern

While this Court has given the effect of res

Texas that private respondents committed

judicata

fraud by selling the property at a price 400

cases, it was after the parties opposed to the

percent more than its true value.

judgment had been given ample opportunity

to foreign

judgments

in several

to repel them on grounds allowed under the

law. This is because in this jurisdiction, with

respect

to

actions

as

being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly

distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign

the issues raised in this case such that the

judgment

judgment that might be rendered would

merely

in

personam,

constitutes

prima

facie

evidence of the justness of the claim of a

constitute res judicata.

party and, as such, is subject to proof to the

Second. Nor is the trial courts refusal to take

contrary. Rule 39, 50 provides:

cognizance of the case justifiable under the

Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. The

principle of forum non conveniens:

effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign

country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the

First, a MTD is limited to the grounds under

judgment is as follows:

Rule 16, sec.1, which does not include forum

non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a

(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific

case based on this principle requires a factual

thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the

determination, hence, it is more properly

title

considered

to

the

thing;

matter

of

defense.

(b) In case of a judgment against a person,

Second, while it is within the discretion of the

the judgment is presumptive evidence of a

trial

right

their

jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so

successors in interest by a subsequent title;

only after vital facts are established, to

but

determine whether special circumstances

as

the

between

the

judgment

may

parties

be

and

repelled

by

evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of

court

to

abstain

from

assuming

require the courts desistance.

notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear

mistake of law or fact.
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that

CORPORATION (HSBC) vs. SHERMAN et al

petitioners were given the opportunity to

G.R. No. 72494

challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as

August 11, 1989

basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive

FACTS: It appears that sometime in 1981,

of the rights of private respondents. The

Eastern

proceedings in the trial court were summary.

(COMPANY),

Neither the trial court nor the appellate court

Singapore applied with and was granted by

was even furnished copies of the pleadings in

HSBC Singapore branch an overdraft facility in

the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence

the maximum amount of Singapore dollars

presented

200,000 with interest at 3% over HSBC prime

thereat,

to

assure

proper

determination of whether the issues then

Book
a

Supply

Service

company

PTE,

incorporated

Ltd.
in

rate, payable monthly, on amounts due under

petition

for

prohibition

with

preliminary

said overdraft facility.

injunction and/or prayer for a restraining

As a security for the repayment by the

order. The IAC rendered a decision enjoining

COMPANY of sums advanced by HSBC to it

the RTC Quezon City from taking further

through the aforesaid overdraft facility, in

cognizance of the case and to dismiss the

1982, both private respondents and a certain

same for filing with the proper court of

Lowe, all of whom were directors of the

Singapore which is the proper forum. MR

COMPANY at such time, executed a Joint and

denied, hence this petition.

Several Guarantee in favor of HSBC whereby

private respondents and Lowe agreed to pay,

ISSUE: Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction

jointly and severally, on demand all sums

over

owed by the COMPANY to petitioner BANK

stipulation regarding jurisdiction?

the

suit,

vis-a-vis

the

Guarantee

under the aforestated overdraft facility.

HELD: YES
The Joint and Several Guarantee provides,

One basic principle underlies all rules of

inter

that:

jurisdiction in International Law: a State does

This guarantee and all rights, obligations and

not have jurisdiction in the absence of some

liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed

reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the

and determined under and may be enforced

proceedings are in rem quasi in rem or in

in accordance with the laws of the Republic of

personam. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction

Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts of

must be based on some minimum contacts

Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all

that will not offend traditional notions of fair

disputes arising under this guarantee.

play

alia,

and

substantial

justice

The defense of private respondents that the

The COMPANY failed to pay its obligation.

complaint should have been filed in Singapore

Thus,

and

is based merely on technicality. They did not

inasmuch as the private respondents still

even claim, much less prove, that the filing of

failed to pay, HSBC filed A complaint for

the

collection of a sum of money against private

unnecessary trouble, damage, or expense. On

respondents Sherman and Reloj before RTC of

the other hand, there is no showing that

Quezon

petitioner BANK filed the action here just to

HSBC

demanded

payment

City.

Private respondents filed an MTD on the

action

here

will

cause

them

any

harass private respondents.

ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject

matter. The trial court denied the motion.

In the case of Neville Y. Lamis Ents., et al. v.

They then filed before the respondent IAC a

Lagamon, etc., where the stipulation was [i]n

case of litigation, jurisdiction shall be vested

NOTES:

in the Court of Davao City. We held:

The

respondent

IAC

likewise

ruled

that:

In a conflict problem, a court will simply

Anent the claim that Davao City had been

refuse to entertain the case if it is not

stipulated as the venue, suffice it to say that a

authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction. And

stipulation as to venue does not preclude the

even if it is so authorized, it may still refuse to

filing of suits in the residence of plaintiff or

entertain the case by applying the principle of

defendant under Section 2 (b), Rule 4, ROC, in

forum

the absence of qualifying or restrictive words

However,

in the agreement which would indicate that

entertained or dismissed on the basis of the

the place named is the only venue agreed

principle of forum non conveniens depends

upon

parties.

largely upon the facts of the particular case

Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, the

and is addressed to the sound discretion of

parties did not thereby stipulate that only the

the trial court. Thus, the IAC should not have

courts of Singapore, to the exclusion of all the

relied on such principle.

by

the

non

conveniens.

whether

suit

should

be

rest, has jurisdiction. Neither did the clause in

question operate to divest Philippine courts of
jurisdiction. In International Law, jurisdiction is
often defined as the light of a State to
exercise authority over persons and things

AZNAR vs. GARCIA

within

certain

G.R. No. L-16749

exceptions. Thus, a State does not assume

January 31, 1963

jurisdiction

sovereigns,

FACTS: EDWARD Christensen died testate.

ambassadors and diplomatic representatives

The estate was distributed by Executioner

of other States, and foreign military units

Aznar according to the will, which provides

stationed

that:

its

boundaries

over

in

or

subject

travelling

marching

to

through

State

Php

3,600

be

given

to

HELEN

territory with the permission of the latters

Christensen as her legacy, and the rest of his

authorities. This authority, which finds its

estate to his daughter LUCY Christensen, as

source in the concept of sovereignty, is

pronounced by CFI Davao.

exclusive within and throughout the domain of

Opposition to the approval of the project of

the State. A State is competent to take hold of

partition was filed by Helen, insofar as it

any judicial matter it sees fit by making its

deprives

courts and agencies assume jurisdiction over

acknowledged natural child, she having been

all kinds of cases brought before them

declared by Us an acknowledged natural child

her

of

her

legitime

as

of the deceased Edward in an earlier case.

an

As

to

his

citizenship,

we

find

that

the

the

national

law

of

the

person

whose

citizenship that he acquired in California when

succession is under consideration, whatever

he resided in Sacramento from 1904 to 1913,

may be the nature of the property and

was never lost by his stay in the Philippines,

regardless of the country where said property

and the deceased appears to have considered

may be found.

himself as a citizen of California by the fact

that when he executed his will he declared

The application of this article in the case at

that he was a citizen of that State; so that he

bar requires the determination of the meaning

appears never to have intended to abandon

of the term national law is used therein.

his California citizenship by acquiring another.

But at the time of his death, he was domiciled

The next question is: What is the law in

in the Philippines.

California

governing

the

disposition

personal

of

property?

ISSUE: what law on succession should apply,

The decision of CFI Davao, sustains the

the Philippine law or the California law?

contention

of

the

executor-appellee

that

under the California Probate Code, a testator

HELD: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed

may dispose of his property by will in the form

from is hereby reversed and the case returned

and manner he desires. But HELEN invokes

to the lower court with instructions that the

the provisions of Article 946 of the Civil Code

partition be made as the Philippine law on

of California, which is as follows:

succession provides.
The law that governs the validity of his

If there is no law to the contrary, in the place

testamentary dispositions is defined in Article

where personal property is situated, it is

16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which

deemed to follow the person of its owner, and

is as follows:

is governed by the law of his domicile.

ART. 16. Real property as well as personal

It is argued on executors behalf that as the

property is subject to the law of the country

deceased Christensen was a citizen of the

where it is situated.

State of California, the internal law thereof,

which is that given in the Kaufman case,

However,

intestate

and

testamentary

should

govern

the

determination

of

the

successions, both with respect to the order of

validity of the testamentary provisions of

succession and to the amount of successional

Christensens will, such law being in force in

rights

of

the State of California of which Christensen

testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by

was a citizen. Appellant, on the other hand,

and

to

the

intrinsic

validity

insists that Article 946 should be applicable,

It is argued on appellees (Aznar and LUCY)

and in accordance therewith and following the

behalf that the clause if there is no law to the

doctrine of the renvoi, the question of the

contrary in the place where the property is

validity of the testamentary provision in

situated in Sec. 946 of the California Civil

question should be referred back to the law of

Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of

the

the Philippines and that the law to the

decedents

domicile,

which

is

the

Philippines.

contrary in the Philippines is the provision in

said Article 16 that the national law of the

We note that Article 946 of the California Civil

deceased should govern. This contention can

Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule

not be sustained.

applied in In re Kaufman, its internal law. If

the law on succ ession and the conflict of laws

As explained in the various authorities cited

rules of California are to be enforced jointly,

above, the national law mentioned in Article

each in its own intended and appropriate

16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of

sphere, the principle cited In re Kaufman

laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article

should apply to citizens living in the State, but

946, which authorizes the reference or return

Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens

of the question to the law of the testators

as are not domiciled in California but in other

domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California,

jurisdictions. The rule laid down of resorting to

Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back

the law of the domicile in the determination of

the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in

matters with foreign element involved is in

California, to the law of his domicile, the

accord with the general principle of American

Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the

law that the domiciliary law should govern in

domicile can not and should not refer the case

most matters or rights which follow the

back to California; such action would leave

person of the owner.

the issue incapable of determination because

the case will then be like a football, tossed

Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the

back and forth between the two states,

Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as

between the country of which the decedent

the

of

was a citizen and the country of his domicile.

California. But as above explained the laws of

The Philippine court must apply its own law as

California have prescribed two sets of laws for

directed in the conflict of laws rule of the

its citizens, one for residents therein and

state of the decedent, if the question has to

another

be decided, especially as the application of

national

for

jurisdictions.

law

is the

those

internal

domiciled

in

law

other

the internal law of California provides no

legitime for children while the Philippine law,

Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the

the company known as Syndicat Oriente,

Philippines, makes natural children legally

formed under the laws of Belgium, of which

acknowledged forced heirs of the parent

the plaintiff was the gestor, and an enemy

recognizing them.

as defined in said Act. The primary purpose of

the proceeding was to seize, sell and convey

We therefore find that as the domicile of the

any and all of the property owned and held by

deceased Edward, a citizen of California, is

the company within the jurisdiction of the

the Philippines, the validity of the provisions

United States, as a war measure, upon the

of his will depriving his acknowledged natural

ground that they were alien enemies of the

child,

United States.

the

appellant

HELEN,

should

be

governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile,

During the public sale, defendant corporation

pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of

was

California,

Property

not

by

the

internal

law

of

California..

the

highest
Custodian

bidder.
of

the

The

said

United

Alien
States

having thereafter accepted said bid and

received from the defendant corporation in

NOTES: There is no single American law

cash the amount of said bid, did execute in

governing

testamentary

favor of the defendant corporation a deed of

provisions in the United States, each state of

conveyance. The defendant paid in good faith,

the

law

and took over the property and assets of the

applicable to its citizens only and in force only

company, including its trade-marks and trade

within the state. The national law indicated

names and its business as a going concern

Union

the

validity

having

its

of

own

private

in Article 16 of the Civil Code above quoted

can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to

After obtaining the proceeds from the sale,

any general American law. So it can refer to

the plaintiff in violation of the conveyance,

no other than the private law of the State of

wrongfully instituted an action in the Supreme

California.

Court of Hongkong against the defendant in

which the plaintiff claimed to be the sole

INGENOHL vs. OLSEN AND COMPANY, INC

owner of the trade-marks for the exports of

G.R. No. L-22288

the business. The Supreme Court of Hongkong

January 12, 1925

ruled

FACTS: In 1919, the acting Alien Property

through

Custodian of the United States, by virtue of

defendant to pay the former for costs and AF.

the Trading with the Enemy Act as amended,

The Court ruled that the deed of conveyance

required and caused to be conveyed to him

limited the sale of the business to the

the property and business then belonging to

trademarks within the Philippines, implying

in

favor

of

the

plaintiff,

misrepresentation,

allegedly
ordering

that the plaintiff is still entitled to the sell the

had

jurisdiction

cigars under the same trademarks through

appeared in the action and contested the case

exporting, which accounts to 95% of the total

on its merits. Hence, there was no collusion.

sales of the company. (This means that the

Neither is it claimed that there was any fraud,

plaintiff paid the cash equivalent of the whole

but

of the business but only entitled to 5% of the

Hongkong judgment was a clear mistake of

such, the sales within the Philippines)- UNFAIR

both law and fact. Exclusive of the provisions

TALAGA!

of section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

it

is

and

vigorously

that

the

contended

defendant

that

the

it is very doubtful whether it could be

The CFI rendered judgment for the plaintiff for

sustained upon the ground of comity or the

the full amount of his claim, with interest,

Law of Nations. As between allied nations and

from which the defendant appeals. Defendant

under the law of comity, their mutual policy

company alleges that when he purchased the

should be to sustain and enforce the spirit and

property and business, all trademarks are

intention with which the seizure and sale of

included; that the subject of the sale is not

any property of an alien enemy was made

only those trademarks for sales within the

rather than to minimize, destroy or defeat

Philippines.

them.

ISSUE: Should the judgment rendered by the

We are construing a deed of conveyance from

Hongkong court be enforced by Philippine

the United States to the defendant. The

courts?

primary purpose of the whole proceeding was

to seize and convey all of the property of the

HELD: NO; we do not hesitate to say that the

plaintiff or his company within the jurisdiction

judgment rendered in the Hongkong court was

of the United States, including trade names

a clear mistake of both law and fact, and that

and trade-marks as those of an alien enemy.

it ought not to be enforced in the Philippine

To now give the defendant the use and benefit

Islands.

of only 5 per cent of such trade names and

The

business

of

the

plaintiff

is

almost

trade-marks, and to permit the plaintiff to

exclusively an export business, and that the

have and retain the other 95 per cent to his

transfer of the goodwill thereof necessarily

own use and benefit after he has ratified and

carried with it the transfer of said export

confirmed the sale, would impugn the honor

business and of the trade-marks and trade

and good name of the United States in the

names which could not be disconnected

whole

therefrom

purpose for which it seized and sold the

- It is conceded that the Hongkong court

property of an alien enemy, to wipe Ingenohl

proceeding

and

defeat

the

very

and his company out of existence and put

Fiscal, after the corresponding investigation,

them out of business in so far as the United

recommended the dismissal of the cases on

States had the power to do so

the

ground

of

insufficiency

of

evidence.

However, upon review, the respondent city

Be that as it may, this court is bound be

fiscal Victor approved a resolution directing

section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

the filing of 2 complaint for adultery against

That law was enacted by the Legislature of

the

the Philippine Islands, and as to the Philippine

Philippines vs. Pilapil and Chia was assigned

Islands, it is the law of the land. In the

to the court presided by the respondent judge

absence of that statute, no matter how

Ibay-Somera.

petitioner.

The

case

entitled

PP

wrongful the judgment of the Hongkong court

may be, there would be strong reasons for

A motion to quash was filed in the same case

holding that it should be enforced by this

which was denied by the respondent. Pilapil

court.

filed this special civil action for certiorari and

prohibition, with a prayer for a TRO, seeking

PILAPIL vs. HON IBAY-SOMERA, VICTOR

the annulment of the order of the lower court

AND GEILING

denying her motion to quash.

G.R. No. 80116

June 30, 1989

As cogently argued by Pilapil, Article 344 of

FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino

the RPC thus presupposes that the marital

citizen, and private respondent Erich Geiling,

relationship is still subsisting at the time of

a German national, were married in Germany.

the institution of the criminal action for

After

adultery.

about

marriage,

three
such

and

half

connubial

years

of

disharmony

eventuated in Geiling initiating a divorce

ISSUE: Did Geiling have legal capacity at the

proceeding against Pilapil in Germany. The

time of the filing of the complaint for adultery,

Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany,

considering that it was done after obtaining a

promulgated a decree of divorce on the

divorce decree?

ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.

More than five months after the issuance of

HELD: WHEREFORE, the questioned order

the

denying petitioners MTQ is SET ASIDE and

divorce

decree,

Geiling

filed

two

complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal

another

one

of Manila alleging in one that, while still

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The TRO

married to said Geiling, Pilapil had an affair

issued

with a certain William Chia. The Assistant

permanent.

in

this

entered

case

DISMISSING

is hereby

the

made

NO

the nationality principle in our civil law on the

Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of

matter of status of persons Under the same

adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a

considerations

sworn written complaint filed by the offended

respondent, being no longer the husband of

spouse. It has long since been established,

petitioner,

had

with unwavering consistency, that compliance

commence

the

with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not

imposture that he was the offended spouse at

merely a formal, requirement.

the time he filed suit.

Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to

BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ

the offended spouse to institute the action, it

G.R. No. 142840

necessarily follows that such initiator must

May 7, 2001

have

FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is

the

status,

capacity

or

legal

issue

rationale,

no

legal

adultery

case

under

consequence since the raison detre of said

shall

provision of law would be absent where the

Representatives unless he is a natural-born

supposed offended party had ceased to be

citizen.

the spouse of the alleged offender at the time

Cruz

of the filing of the criminal case.

Philippines. He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of

was

Filipino
differently,

the

inquiry

would

of

natural-born

parents.

In

1985,

view

the

constitutional requirement that no person

Member

in

to

filing of the criminal action. This is a logical

case,

standing

at

be

this

private

representation to do so at the time of the

Stated

in

and

the

of

the

House

citizen

of

however,

of

the

Cruz

be

enlisted in the US Marine Corps and without

whether it is necessary in the commencement

the consent of the Republic of the Philippines,

of a criminal action for adultery that the

took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a

marital bonds between the complainant and

Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship

the accused be unsevered and existing at the

for under CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the

time of the institution of the action by the

Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be

former against the latter.

Lost or Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a

Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by,

In the present case, the fact that private

among

respondent obtained a valid divorce in his

accepting commission in the armed forces of

country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is

a foreign country.

other,

rendering

service

to

or

admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects

may be recognized in the Philippines insofar

Whatever doubt that remained regarding his

as private respondent is concerned in view of

loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by his

naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in

Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship

connection with his service in the U.S. Marine

may however reacquire the same in the

Corps.

manner provided by law. C.A. No. 63

enumerates the 3 modes by which Philippine

In

1994,

Cruz

reacquired

citizenship through

his

Philippine

repatriation

under RA

citizenship may be reacquired by a former

citizen:

2630 [(An Act Providing for Reacquisition of

1. by naturalization,

Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost

2. by repatriation, and

Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or

3. by direct act of Congress.

Accepting Commission In, the Armed Forces of

**

the United States (1960)]. He ran for and was

elected as the Representative of the 2nd

Repatriation may be had under various

District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections.

statutes by those who lost their citizenship

He won over petitioner Bengson who was then

due to:

running for reelection.

1. desertion of the armed forces;

2. services in the armed forces of the allied

Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo

forces in World War II;

Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET

3. service in the Armed Forces of the United

claiming that Cruz was not qualified to

States at any other time,

become a member of the HOR since he is not

4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien;

and

natural-born

citizen

as

required

under

Article VI, section 6 of the Constitution.

5. political economic necessity

HRET rendered its decision dismissing the

petition for quo warranto and declaring Cruz

Repatriation results in the recovery of the

the duly elected Representative in the said

original

election.

naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will

nationality

This

means

that

be restored to his prior status as a naturalized

ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who

Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was

became an American citizen, can still be

originally a natural-born citizen before he lost

considered a natural-born Filipino upon his

his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored

reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

HELD: petition dismissed

R.A.

YES

Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine

citizenship

No.

by

2630

rendering

provides:

service

to,

or

accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of

Nevada, USA in 1982. Alice has then re-

the United States, or after separation from the

married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore

Armed Forces of the United States, acquired

Van Dorn.

United

reacquire

In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice in the

Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of

RTC-Pasay, stating that Alices business in

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines

Ermita, Manila is conjugal property of the

and registering the same with Local Civil

parties, and asking that Alice be ordered to

Registry in the place where he resides or last

render an accounting of that business, and

resided in the Philippines. The said oath of

that Richard be declared with right to manage

allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any

the conjugal property.

States

citizenship,

may

other citizenship.
Alice moved to dismiss the case on the
Having thus taken the required oath of

ground that the cause of action is barred by

allegiance

having

previous judgment in the divorce proceedings

registered the same in the Civil Registry of

before the Nevada Court wherein respondent

Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with

had acknowledged that he and petitioner had

the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to

no community property as of June 11, 1982.

have recovered his original

The Court below (presiding judge: Judge

natural-born

to

the

citizen,

Republic

and

status as a

status

which

he

Romillo) denied the MTD in the mentioned

acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino

case on the ground that the property involved

father. It bears stressing that the act of

is located in the Philippines so that the

repatriation allows him to recover, or return

Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.

to, his original status before he lost his

The denial is now the subject of this certiorari

Philippine citizenship.

proceeding.

ISSUE: What is the effect of the foreign

VAN DORN vs. HON. ROMILLO and

divorce on the parties and their alleged

RICHARD UPTON

conjugal property in the Philippines?

G.R. No. L-68470

October 8, 1985

HELD: Petition is granted, and respondent

FACTS: Petitioner Alice Van Dorn is a citizen

Judge

of the Philippines while private respondent

Complaint

Richard Upton is a citizen of the USA. They

For the resolution of this case, it is not

were married in Hongkong in 1972 and begot

necessary to determine whether the property

two children. The parties were divorced in

relations between Alice and Richard, after

is

hereby

ordered

to

dismiss

the

their marriage, were upon absolute or relative

be adjudicated by the court.

community

xxx xxx xxx

property,

upon

complete

separation of property, or upon any other

regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the

There can be no question as to the validity of

Nevada divorce of the parties.

that Nevada divorce in any of the States of

the United States. The decree is binding on

The Nevada District Court, which decreed the

private respondent as an American citizen.

divorce,

over

What he is contending in this case is that the

petitioner who appeared in person before the

divorce is not valid and binding in this

Court during the trial of the case. It also

jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local

obtained jurisdiction over private respondent

law and public policy.

had

obtained

jurisdiction

who authorized his attorneys in the divorce

case to agree to the divorce on the ground of

It is true that owing to the nationality principle

incompatibility

that

embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only

there were neither community property nor

Philippine nationals are covered by the policy

community obligations.

against absolute divorces the same being

in

the

understanding

considered contrary to our concept of public

As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney

police and morality. However, aliens may

he executed in favor of the law firm of KARP &

obtain

GRAD LTD. to represent him in the divorce

recognized in the Philippines, provided they

proceedings:

are valid according to their national law. In

divorces

abroad,

which

may

be

this case, the divorce in Nevada released

xxx

xxx

xxx

private respondent from the marriage from

You are hereby authorized to accept service of

the standards of American law, under which

Summons, to file an Answer, appear on my

divorce dissolves the marriage.

behalf and do all things necessary and proper

to represent me, without further contesting,

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private

subject to the following:

respondent is no longer the husband of

petitioner. He would have no standing to sue

1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the

in the case below as petitioners husband

ground of incompatibility.

entitled to exercise control over conjugal

2. That there is no community of property to

assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his

be adjudicated by the Court.

own countrys Court, which validly exercised

3. That there are no community obligations to

jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he

does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own

representation

before

said

Court

from

The Plaintiff commenced an action in the CFI-

asserting his right over the alleged conjugal

Manila to recover from Frank the sum of

property.

money, which amount the Plaintiff claimed

had been paid to Frank as expenses incurred
in traveling from Chicago to Manila, and as

THE GOVT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

vs.
G.

half-salary for the period consumed in travel.

FRANK
R.

No.

2935

It was expressly agreed between the parties

March 23, 1909

to said contract that Laws No. 80 and No. 224

FACTS: In 1903, in the city of Chicago, Illinois,

should constitute a part of said contract.

Frank entered into a contract for a period of 2

years with the Plaintiff, by which Frank was to

The Defendant filed a general denial and a

receive a salary as a stenographer in the

special

service of the said Plaintiff, and in addition

defense

thereto was to be paid in advance the

(1) the Government of the Philippine Islands

expenses incurred in traveling from the said

had amended Laws No. 80 and No. 224 and

city of Chicago to Manila, and one-half salary

had

during said period of travel.

contract,

defense,

thereby

alleging

in

his

special
that

materially
and

altered

the

also

said
that

(2) he was a minor at the time the contract

Said contract contained a provision that in

was entered into and was therefore not

case of a violation of its terms on the part of

responsible

Frank, he should become liable to the Plaintiff

the lower court rendered a judgment against

for the amount expended by the Government

Frank and in favor of the Plaintiff for the sum

by way of expenses incurred in traveling from

of 265. 90 dollars

under

the

law.

Chicago to Manila and the one-half salary paid

ISSUE:

during such period.

1. Did the amendment of the laws altered the

Frank entered upon the performance of his

tenor of the contract entered into between

contract and was paid half-salary from the

Plaintiff

date until the date of his arrival in the

2. Can the defendant allege minority/infancy?

and

Defendant?

Philippine Islands.
HELD: the judgment of the lower court is
Thereafter, Frank left the service of the

affirmed

Plaintiff

1. NO; It may be said that the mere fact that

and

refused

to

make

further

compliance with the terms of the contract.

the legislative department of the Government

of the Philippine Islands had amended said

the contract was made, made persons in said

Acts No. 80 and No. 224 by Acts No. 643 and

Islands did not reach their majority until they

No. 1040 did not have the effect of changing

had attained the age of 23 years, he was not

the terms of the contract made between the

liable under said contract, contending that the

Plaintiff and the Defendant. The legislative

laws of the Philippine Islands governed.

department of the Government is expressly

prohibited by section 5 of the Act of Congress

It is not disputed upon the contrary the fact

of 1902 from altering or changing the terms of

is admitted that at the time and place of

a contract. The right which the Defendant had

the making of the contract in question the

acquired by virtue of Acts No. 80 and No. 224

Defendant had full capacity to make the

had not been changed in any respect by the

same. No rule is better settled in law than

fact that said laws had been amended. These

that matters bearing upon the execution,

acts, constituting the terms of the contract,

interpretation and validity of a contract are

still constituted a part of said contract and

determined b the law of the place where the

were enforceable in favor of the Defendant.

contract is made. Matters connected with its

performance

law

Matters respecting a remedy, such as the

the contract could not be enforced against

bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and

him. The record discloses that, at the time the

statutes of limitations, depend upon the law

contract was entered into in the State of

of the place where the suit is brought.

that laws of the Philippine Islands at the time

of

the

defense that he was a minor and therefore

claims that, by reason of the fact that, under

place

by

prevailing

State and had full authority to contract. Frank

the

regulated

2. NO; The Defendant alleged in his special

Illinois, he was an adult under the laws of that

at

are

performance.